Those going over are locked out not on strike so they are not scabs and scum of the earth taking a job of a fellow worker trying to collectively bargain. This is a huge technical distinction...

but as for your ethical conundrum, what job is being taken? Since the lockout was unplanned (if you want to believe that gangster and proven liar Bettman) its safe to assume that all of the teams in Europe have their rosters set and under contract without NHL players, now that some NHL players are temporarily available for an undetermined period of time they will naturally take advantage and some european players will temporarily lose roster spots but they will still be under contract and still have their jobs...It would be stupid for a team to let their lesser players go and hope that the lockout lasts the year because they would be fuk ked if a CBA gets signed this season and they resume play here.

So.... some euopeon players will temporarily lose roster spots because of NHL players taking their spot. How can this not be players f---ing other players? How would you like it if you were that player, being such a strong unionist ? Do you know for sure that this is a temporary situation? Christ this could easily go on all year. No, I think the NHLPA players should stay away from the europeon leagues and fight the good fight back here,you know solidarity and all that.

ukcanuck wrote:btw why would you publically admit to being a turncoat and union buster? I'm supposed to be impressed that knowing the things that unions have given society doesn't shut your gloating? And what has that got to do with your wrong opinion?

Clearly you're taking this stuff personal. I don't see any gloating from Tiger. You're publically admitting to be a company man. So what? If we can't talk about this shit how would you ever understand your position better?

Unions aren't all good man. There is a time and place for the ideal of unions but they can grow into monsters that are bad for the country or the system they operate within. Unions are for themselves after all. There's loads of stuff online about this. Here's a few quick links I came across :

TSN wrote:The sides have agreed to sit down together in New York on Wednesday and Thursday, but deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Monday that he expects the conversation to cover secondary issues, including "health and safety, medical care, drug testing, rent and mortgage reimbursements (and) grievances."

Are you shitting me???? These guys make millions of dollars but are reimbursed by the team for their rent and/or mortgage? That had better be a joke. I can understand if this is in regards to AHL call-ups who need to rent or setup in a hotel, but not for NHL regulars. If you rent and get traded then you rent somewhere else. If you have a mortgage then you sell or retain the equity of the house. If you're making more than $500K/year, which every NHL regular does make, then I think there is a SERIOUS problem with our society and these athletes in general when there are people below the poverty line in every major city who can barely make enough to pay their own rent in some meager dwelling but these millionaires are making their outrageous salaries and not having to foot any of their own basic costs?

TSN wrote:The sides have agreed to sit down together in New York on Wednesday and Thursday, but deputy commissioner Bill Daly said Monday that he expects the conversation to cover secondary issues, including "health and safety, medical care, drug testing, rent and mortgage reimbursements (and) grievances."

Are you shitting me???? These guys make millions of dollars but are reimbursed by the team for their rent and/or mortgage? That had better be a joke. I can understand if this is in regards to AHL call-ups who need to rent or setup in a hotel, but not for NHL regulars. If you rent and get traded then you rent somewhere else. If you have a mortgage then you sell or retain the equity of the house. If you're making more than $500K/year, which every NHL regular does make, then I think there is a SERIOUS problem with our society and these athletes in general when there are people below the poverty line in every major city who can barely make enough to pay their own rent in some meager dwelling but these millionaires are making their outrageous salaries and not having to foot any of their own basic costs?

One more strike against the players.

But corporate welfare for the owners is all good right? Tax breaks, subsidies and incentives- sweetheart deals like the one Katz is bending the city of Edmonton over for is perfectly fine??

ukcanuck wrote:But corporate welfare for the owners is all good right? Tax breaks, subsidies and incentives- sweetheart deals like the one Katz is bending the city of Edmonton over for is perfectly fine??

As I understand sporting events bring in HUGE dollars for cities, they like that. They like the city to be promoted Just like u negoiate with the Union you do the same with the city and Province. Should they be exempt from this ?

Meds wrote:Are you shitting me???? These guys make millions of dollars but are reimbursed by the team for their rent and/or mortgage? That had better be a joke. I can understand if this is in regards to AHL call-ups who need to rent or setup in a hotel, but not for NHL regulars. If you rent and get traded then you rent somewhere else. If you have a mortgage then you sell or retain the equity of the house. If you're making more than $500K/year, which every NHL regular does make, then I think there is a SERIOUS problem with our society and these athletes in general when there are people below the poverty line in every major city who can barely make enough to pay their own rent in some meager dwelling but these millionaires are making their outrageous salaries and not having to foot any of their own basic costs?

One more strike against the players.

You are making something out of nothing.

Per diems, stipends, and mortgage rebates are small potatoes compared to the billions in total compensation.

Dont sweat the small stuff.

Anyway this lock out is stating to get incredibly annoying. The solution seems so obvious.....

If the players main issue is that the NHL honor current contracts then all you have to do is introduce a slow cap reduction down to 50% over the course of a few seasons and voila, everyone is happy.

This is not like the last time where there were massive philosophical differences between the 2 sides.

I guess we just have to wait another month or 2 for the players to truly start missing their paychecks and the owners to get closer to the part of the seasons where they make the majority of their profit.

Found the Article in an old CBA that covered this topic. Why you're getting upset about something the players negotiated in good faith and the owners have agreed upon is beyond me.

It also seems as though it's mainly when players are relocated via trade or team relocation that some of their mortgage or rent costs are covered for 6 months. Basically enough time for the player to decide if he wants to live permanently in the city he's just been moved to.

14.1. Rent/Mortgage Expenses.

(a) A player whose contract is assigned (whether by trade,waiver including players exempt from waivers, waiver draft,expansion or team relocation) from one Club to another shall bereimbursed from the assignee-Club (or his own Club in the case ofrelocation) a sum equal to six months' rent or mortgage, as thecase may be, on his living quarters in the city from which he isassigned; provided, however, that such reimbursement shall bemade only if and to the extent that the player is legallyobligated to make and does make such payment and, provided,further, that the Club's obligation shall in no event exceed forthe 1995/96 and 1996/97 seasons, $2,500 per month, for the1997/98 and 1998/99 seasons, $2,600 per month and for the 1999/00season, $2,700 per month. Any such payments shall be made on apro rata basis if a full month is not involved. A player subjectto any such aforesaid assignment is referred to as an "AssignedPlayer."

14.2. Moving Expenses. The reasonable moving expensesincurred by a player who is assigned during the playing season byone Club to another Club and moves to the area where it islocated shall be paid by the Club to which the player wasassigned (or his own Club in the case of a relocation). If forfamily reasons the player delays moving his family to the area towhich he is assigned, no moving expenses incurred at the time ofassignment by the Player shall be paid by the Club but thereasonable moving expenses incurred by the player in connectionwith the move of his family to the area to which he is assignedshall be paid by the Club to which he was assigned (or his ownClub in the case of a relocation). In the case of any other movedirected by a Club during the playing season, which is not partof disciplinary action, the Club shall pay the reasonable movingexpenses incurred by the player. "Reasonable moving expenses"shall include the costs of moving player's automobile (twoautomobiles if player is married). A player will have the rightto relocate within 12 months after the date of assignment, excepta player on a Player Contract deemed to be a "TerminationContract" in accordance with Transition Rule 4B must relocate theearliest of (a) the end of the regular season; (b) when here-signs with a new Club or (c) when he has been authorized torelocate by the Club. In the event that an assignment of aplayer by one Club to another Club or a team relocation occursduring the period between playing seasons, the reasonable movingexpenses incurred by the player shall be paid by the Club towhich he is assigned (or by his own Club in the case of a teamrelocation) if the player maintained a year-round home at thetime of an assignment in the city from which he was assigned, andmoves during the first playing season following an assignmentfrom said area to the area of the Club to which he was assigned.

14.3. Hotel Accommodations. The Club acquiring a playerthrough a trade shall provide the player a single room hotelaccommodation at the Club's expense for a period up to twenty-onedays in the city to which he has been traded.

14.4. (a) Prior to its reimbursing an Assigned Player asprovided in this Article 14 an assignee-Club (or his own Club inthe case of a team relocation) may require satisfactory proofthat the player has paid the amounts for which he seeksreimbursement, and, in the case of rent or mortgagereimbursements, satisfactory proof (e.g. the lease) that theplayer is legally obligated to pay such rent or mortgage and theamount thereof. Upon notice to the player, the assignee-Club (orhis own Club in the case of a team relocation) may, as analternative to reimbursement, pay the expenses incurred uponassignment (in accordance with the foregoing provisions of thisArticle 14) directly to the person, firms, or corporationsinvolved.

(b) A player shall have deducted from any reimbursement ofexpenses he is otherwise entitled to pursuant to this Section anyamount the player is reimbursed, directly or indirectly, for suchexpenses from any other source whatsoever (e.g.: PHPA benefits,spousal benefits, etc.).

14.5. Spousal Airfare. A player's spouse and children will beentitled to one round-trip economy class airfare between the Cityfrom which the player was assigned and the city to which he wasassigned.

14.6. Currency Conversion (a) Upon the occurrence of aPlayer assignment (as described in Section 14.1(a)) in which anAssigned Player goes from one country to another, the AssignedPlayer shall have the following options in regards to currency:

(i) The Assigned Player can elect to converthis entire contract to the currency of the Club he is assigned to(or the currency of the country in which his Club is relocated)at the effective Currency Exchange Ratio on the day of the Player assignment;

(ii) The Assigned Player can elect to continueto be paid the actual currency of his contract; or

(iii) The Assigned Player can elect from timeto time to be paid the actual currency ofhis contract or to convert his contract to the currency of theClub he is assigned to (or the currency of the country in whichhis Club is relocated) on a bi-monthly basis at the CurrencyExchange Ratio in effect on the last business day of the monthimmediately preceding the applicable election.

(b) When a player on a Canadian dollar contract with aCanadian Club is subject to a Player assignment to a U.S. Cluband is then subject to a Player assignment to a Canadian Clubduring the term of the same contract, his salary with theacquiring Canadian Club shall be as stated on the face of thatCanadian dollar contract and the player shall thereafter be paidin Canadian dollars only without any right to elect U.S.currency. By way of example, if a player on a Canadian Clubearning $1 million per year in Canadian funds is subject to anassignment to a U.S. Club and then subject to an assignment backto a Canadian Club, his salary with the last Canadian Club shallbe $1 million per year in Canadian funds. The player's right toelect to be paid in U.S. or in Canadian funds while on the U.S.Club is unaffected by this paragraph. These principles alsoapply when the Player assignment sequence is U.S. Club - CanadianClub - U.S. Club.

14.7. In the event that a player is subject to a Playerassignment on March 1 or later in any League Year, the assigneeClub will provide such assigned Player with a single hotel roomuntil the end of the playoffs.

ukcanuck wrote:But corporate welfare for the owners is all good right? Tax breaks, subsidies and incentives- sweetheart deals like the one Katz is bending the city of Edmonton over for is perfectly fine??

As I understand sporting events bring in HUGE dollars for cities, they like that. They like the city to be promoted Just like u negoiate with the Union you do the same with the city and Province. Should they be exempt from this ?

You know what, I just think you use the same sauce for the goose as the gander.

It's ridiculous to point fingers at the players and say how greedy when they are pure amateurs when it comes to the unbridled greed of the owners.

It's ridiculous to say that the owners provide jobs and bring business to a city and forget the tax that the players pay into all levels of government. if the players get 57 percent of HHR a much higher portion of that will come back to all of us as a society than will come back out of the owners share.

Moreover it's highly debatable that the presence of the Canucks contribute that much to the economy anyway. It's deposable income that's being spent on game nights and that money will be spent somewhere. other businesses and other pursuits will benefit from the absense of the NHL during this lockout so how much public welfare do we really need to provide?

ukcanuck wrote:You know what, I just think you use the same sauce for the goose as the gander.

I agree completely, unfortunately you do not practice what you preach....

It's ridiculous to point fingers at the players and say how greedy when they are pure amateurs when it comes to the unbridled greed of the owners.

See..

Moreover it's highly debatable that the presence of the Canucks contribute that much to the economy anyway. It's deposable income that's being spent on game nights and that money will be spent somewhere. other businesses and other pursuits will benefit from the absense of the NHL during this lockout so how much public welfare do we really need to provide?

I disagree.

If you take away the Canucks it is highly unlikely that I would spend the same money on other local events as I don't have the same type of interest. I would either put it in my pocket, or go on a trip, or something else.

I dont think I am unique on this either.

NHL hockey just has far more appeal then the other stuff going on in the city.

It's even worse in a shit hole like Edmonton.

That said I don't think NHL teams in Canada should get public money, that is just silly given how profitable they currently are.

When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

PS can we get a title change for this thread ?

I've had the same thought about all the people who keep bashing the players, if and how they can then come back and cheer these guys on after all the bashing. On this board at least, the vitriol directed toward the players far exceeds that directed towards the owners.

I, for one, have little interest in debating the topic of the lockout, other than the occasional comment I can't be bothered much more. I've been clear about the side I am on, but I'd just like to see it over. Debating the composition of the Canucks 4th line is far more interesting than all of this.

ukcanuck wrote:You know what, I just think you use the same sauce for the goose as the gander.

I agree completely, unfortunately you do not practice what you preach....

It's ridiculous to point fingers at the players and say how greedy when they are pure amateurs when it comes to the unbridled greed of the owners.

See..

I suppose your pointing to the fact that I think the owners are more greedy and better at it than the players as me not being balanced about this whole thing. ...Perhaps I am. Its probably natural to argue ones own position more strongly than positions opposed ... That probably makes me about as bad as nearly everyone else on this thread. However, it doesn't change the fact that opinions on this thread have skewered the players for actions no worse than the owners and that's if you believe that the owners intentions are purely honourable.

Obviously I don't believe owners are being honorable, I think they would be as happy to have the players as low paid as possible and not have to supply any resources for the players beyond what gets them on the ice on game night.

An example of what I think the NHL would be like without an organised players union is the WWE which has no union and the performers in that business live and die with drug addiction and physical pain at a staggeringly higher rate than other similar businesses (400% higher by some sources)The parent company and owners of that corporation have made their wealth driving those men into the ground. The list is of wrestlers who have dies from steroids, heart attacks, and drug overdoses is obscene by comparison to the NHL and although there are contributing factors not present in hockey the business part of the equation is essentially the same.

Topper wrote:

Moreover it's highly debatable that the presence of the Canucks contribute that much to the economy anyway. It's deposable income that's being spent on game nights and that money will be spent somewhere. other businesses and other pursuits will benefit from the absense of the NHL during this lockout so how much public welfare do we really need to provide?

I disagree.

If you take away the Canucks it is highly unlikely that I would spend the same money on other local events as I don't have the same type of interest. I would either put it in my pocket, or go on a trip, or something else.

I dont think I am unique on this either.

NHL hockey just has far more appeal then the other stuff going on in the city.

It's even worse in a shit hole like Edmonton.

yes but you would likely spend it on something and unless you take your money out of the city and province, your money is still grist for the mill.

I'm just not completely sold on the notion that the Canucks as an example, really brings back enough to justify any public money...I know that the Canucks are a poor example since Rogers was built with private money....

Topper wrote:That said I don't think NHL teams in Canada should get public money, that is just silly given how profitable they currently are.

we agree there and I think it would be a great thing for all North American society if every jurisdiction could agree so that leagues can't hold anyone hostage.

Blob Mckenzie wrote:When the owners eventually force the players to capitulate here, which they will, I wonder how many of the crybabies who constantly bash the owners at every turn will tune out NHL hockey. To see some people get so riled up it will probably tear their hearts out when the owners curbstomp the players once again.

Certain people seem to want to argue about the NHL lockout more than they have ever discussed hockey.

PS can we get a title change for this thread ?

I'd comment more on the Canucks and their line up and how they play but I'd just be agreeing with you most of the time, and it might be disconcerting for you to be in concorde with the mongoloid patrol